Why on earth would you not compensate someone who created something that you benefit from? Do you expect everything in life to be handed to you for free, with no effort on your part, and contribute nothing in return to society?

The idea that it's OK to take something that isn't yours and not compensate whoever it belongs it is just that, yes.

par·a·site/ˈparəˌsīt/

Noun:
1.An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
2.derogatory. A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

You are assuming that texts belong to those that have written them, we are not sure that this is the case.

"We" might not be, but pretty much everybody but you is.

par·a·site/ˈparəˌsīt/

Noun:
1.An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
2.derogatory. A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

A writer who lives under a government which deems all property to be theft might not entertain expectations of ownership, and so might agree to the condition you wish to impose (if only by your stating that non-ownership is the natural course of the flow of information -- you're still imposing that decision).

But what about a writer whose decision to create a work of fiction was predicated on the established condition (in that society, under that government) that the reader must pay for their copy of that work? The writer has been deceived if the work is then treated as free. If, in a capitalist society, a peasant toiling in the field must be paid by the person who benefits from their work, then why should a writer not depend on the same agreement? The courts are full of unpaid workers and deadbeat employers.

He's made it very clear he doesn't, and can't be trusted to tell the truth.

I think he's made his position clear in certain ways but not in others.

As for his being trustworthy and/or truthful: I'd rather not associate someone's abstract beliefs with inherent strength of character or the lack of it. Anti-Semitism is an example of how wrong that supposition can go.

His credo might seem to you to be an excuse for his own unethical conduct elsewhere, but to assume it is truly such an excuse is to claim access to his unstated motives and intentions -- and that can't be verified.

I think he's made his position clear in certain ways but not in others.

As for his being trustworthy and/or truthful: I'd rather not associate someone's abstract beliefs with inherent strength of character or the lack of it. Anti-Semitism is an example of how wrong that supposition can go.

His credo might seem to you to be an excuse for his own unethical conduct elsewhere, but to assume it is truly such an excuse is to claim access to his unstated motives and intentions -- and that can't be verified.

Either he really believes in what he says he believes in, and acts accordingly to the limits of his ability and willingness, in which case we can assume he's dishonest and untrustworthy because he says he's dishonest and untrustworthy, or he doens't, in which his claim about what he believes is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Either he really believes in what he says he believes in, and acts accordingly to the limits of his ability and willingness, in which case we can assume he's dishonest and untrustworthy because he says he's dishonest and untrustworthy, or he doens't, in which his claim about what he believes is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Where exactly does he say that he is dishonest? And even if he did say so explicitly (which I very much doubt), wouldn't that be a classic paradox?

However much one disagrees with the ideas of communal property and piracy, someone else's belief in or defense of those ideas doesn't make that person inherently dishonest.

Diap's on firmer ground calling Giggleton delusional (though I'm not thrilled about the ad populum) because at least Diap's joking about the plausibility of his opponent's arguments and beliefs.

The idea that it's OK to take something that isn't yours and not compensate whoever it belongs it is just that, yes.

par·a·site/ˈparəˌsīt/

Noun:
1.An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
2.derogatory. A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Are you complaining here that i mis-spelled "False Dichotomy" by pretending not to understand? The problem is of course that the only alternative is not totally free and not contributing back anything. Especially since we always contribute back things by our actions. So a typical false dichotomy and that is a fallacy and it is bad to use fallacies in discussions.

No. People can be other things than libertariarans or being people believing in a religious way in fundamental rights. For example as the people that have written the laws in most countries since each law system have restriction in what you are allowed to do with things. And laws usually do not specify any concept of belong and what it means.

A writer who lives under a government which deems all property to be theft might not entertain expectations of ownership, and so might agree to the condition you wish to impose (if only by your stating that non-ownership is the natural course of the flow of information -- you're still imposing that decision).

But what about a writer whose decision to create a work of fiction was predicated on the established condition (in that society, under that government) that the reader must pay for their copy of that work? The writer has been deceived if the work is then treated as free. If, in a capitalist society, a peasant toiling in the field must be paid by the person who benefits from their work, then why should a writer not depend on the same agreement? The courts are full of unpaid workers and deadbeat employers.

Just because the laws says that you have to pay for a copy does not mean that the copy belongs to the creator. It is obvious that with current laws the work does not belong to the creator in the way you are using the term here since after a while the creator loose control and people do not have to pay for copies.

He openly advocates agreeing to a contract with no intention of living up to the agreement. To normal people, that's the definition of dishonesty. If you're using the word differently than everyone else, it's literally impossible to hold a coherent discussion with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

However much one disagrees with the ideas of communal property and piracy, someone else's belief in or defense of those ideas doesn't make that person inherently dishonest.

He advocated lying. Either he believes what he's saying, or he doesn't. That is a binary equastion; there are no other possibilities. If he does believe what he's saying, he's saying he's dishonest. If he doesn't, he's lying, and that's dishonest. It's a short logic tree, and both branches end in the same place: dishonesty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Diap's on firmer ground calling Giggleton delusional (though I'm not thrilled about the ad populum) because at least Diap's joking about the plausibility of his opponent's arguments and beliefs.

In fact, I'm increasingly convinced he's not delusional, so much as a deliberate troll, whose sole purpose is to provoke people. The only real mystery is why the mods have put up with him as long as they have, since he hijacks every thread he can with his whining about having to pay for stuff he wants, and has even started a thread to mull over the details of a web site that, if he actually built it, would likely constitution criminal infringement.

And laws usually do not specify any concept of belong and what it means.

That is the most riduculous thing you've said so far, and given how ridiculous most of what you say has been ,that's a real accomplishment. You're becoming increasingly incoherent, too. I have only a vague idea what you're trying to say. I suspect you do, as well.